Wednesday, 19 July 2017

With the
much-anticipated 7th season of Game of Thrones
about to begin it may be an opportune time to review what the events
in Westeros have come to represent, and what they mean. What can we
learn from the struggle for the Iron Throne and the conflict between
the characters and realms it causes?

The first thing to note
about the world of the Westerosi is that life is complicated.
Politics, not in terms of grand ideologies or narratives of state but
in terms of the endless micro-politics of feud, bargain and vendetta,
is the real subject of Game of Thrones. With few real
differences in worldview or philosophy between the Kingdoms life
takes on the nature of an endless battle for supremacy or survival,
as the interlocking rivalries constantly revolve and interchange.

This lack of clarity in
purpose locks the characters in some kind of omnipresent moral fog.
It's striking, especially on repeated viewings, how the characters
begin the series nearly all suffering under some kind of
misapprehension; all misunderstanding each others motives or keeping
some secret so that they are all incapable of seeing each other
straight. It's not until later in the series do we even begin to
understand what really caused events to unfold as they did.
Throughout the narrative characters are unaware of what is being said
or done by others at the same time, almost as if a constellation of
planets was orbiting as-yet-unseen celestial body.

The actual
bread-and-butter of politics in the series deals with the realities
of government. Ruling is a complicated business that entails building
coalitions of support, a great deal of horsetrading, and no little
bloodshed. Without this hegemony and the force to back it up, Kings
are vulnerable to be deposed. The Mad King's brutality saw him lose
allies until he eventually made a coalition opposing him a political
necessity, as well as a reality. Robert Baratheon, despite having no
claim to the throne, nonetheless wins it. The Lannisters have to
continually align themselves with rival houses to peel off some of
the opposing forces against them, but even they slowly alienate their
supporters and become isolated. The Houses effectively operate as
political parties do, garnering and consolidating their support. The
layers of legitimate force are also complicated, with the King, the
City and the Houses all having their own separate militia. To survive
and rule in this world you have to be flexible, lithe, and probably
morally corrupt.

The key exemplars of
this realpolitik tend to be the most morally bereft and brutal –
Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, Walder Frey, Cersei. Those characters
who try to self-consciously demonstrate a moral rectitude – Eddard
Stark, Jon Snow, Daenerys – all suffer for this to varying degrees
and ultimately all have to face the fact that the mathematics of
political reality still apply to them. Jon's attempts to effectively
ride two horses at the same time, performing the greater good and
shoring up his support in the Night's Watch, proves futile. Ned Stark
discovers that people are much more complicated than he can imagine,
and being a man of honour he can't imagine how complicated they
really are.

The key event in the
series is actually a depressingly modern event – a (literal) palace
coup, at a moment of political crisis caused by King Robert's
assassination. As such the Lannisters maintain power through a
variety of measures which slowly hollow out the integrity of the
institutions of state. Their decreasing circle of power throughout
the series is in direct correlation to the amount of arbitrary
violence that the Lannisters are prepared to use, most spectacularly
being the bombing of the Sept of Baelor at the end of season 6. What
else can Cersei do to maintain her grip on power after that? What
isn't she prepared to do?

Issues of federalism
and independence naturally arise. The North wishes to make it
ungovernable but ultimately has to contend itself to being a vassal.
Life under occupation or as a neo-colonial client state is brutal and
hopeless. Those kingdoms that attempt to maintain their autonomy or
neutrality, such as the Vale, simply become embroiled in a greater
game. Both independence and neutrality appear to be illusory, as it
is practically impossible to prevent outside influence corrupting
whatever dreams of nationhood that the Kingdoms may have.

Outside the arena of
conflict some attempt to maintain a constant opposition. The
wildlings are an obvious example, being marked as literally 'beyond'
or 'outside' the political arena and whose inability to submit limits
their ability to influence events. The Iron Islands have to contend
themselves with a kind of nihilistic doomed rebellion, never able to
succeed in making a mark on the world and always prone to bloody and
inevitable defeat.

The introduction of a
supernatural element in the series presents a method where the
oppressed and the outsiders are given a kind of deus ex machina to
switch the odds. The dragons, previously the vanguard of Targaryen
oppression, become the vanguard for the liberation of the slaves. The
Lord of Light gives the Brotherhood Without Banners the power of
resurrection, and brings Jon Snow back from the dead. The religion of
the slaves has teeth. But when spirituality is used for political
ends, either by Cersei or by Stannis, it proves to be both
authoritarian and disastrous. The Faceless Men also represent a
failed liberation narrative – ostensibly disciples of the religion
of the oppressed, now merely a guild of assassins bought by coin and
inevitably being used for the advancement of oppressive ends.

The sweep of the story
is beginning to take on an emancipatory arc, as the Mother of Dragons
& Breaker of Chains returns to Westeros after leaving a trail of
liberation in her wake. The idea of a 'white saviour' bringing
freedom to black slaves is inherently problematic, although some
effort has been made to give the liberated a voice in Daenerys'
actions. How will the 'rainbow coalition' of warriors, freed slaves,
mercenaries and Greyjoy deserters maintain their unity in their new
role as conquerors?

Whether there is any
actual development towards democracy or liberation in Westeros is
open to conjecture, but one thing is for sure – the world of the
Westerosi is bound to stay as Machiavellian as ever.